Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The development of
motor behavior
Karen E. Adolph1* and John M. Franchak2
nonobvious that we fail to recognize the link. Devel- Postural development is the attainment of
opmental changes in one domain can have cascading increasingly erect postures poised over an increasingly
effects on development in other domains, sometimes small base of support. Think of a newborn struggling
far afield from the original accomplishment.8,9 More- to lift its head, a toddler’s wide walking stance, and an
over, the context in which behavior develops can be older child dancing on pointe. Indeed, the most com-
very different for individual children, resulting in mon images of motor development are milestone
developmental pathways that sometimes converge at charts of postural development (Figure 1). The mile-
the same outcome and sometimes veer off in unique stone charts suggest an orderly, age-related march
directions. through a series of stages, but developmental pathways
This article is organized around four basic can differ and individual infants do not strictly adhere
action systems—posture, locomotion, manual to the normative sequence derived from average onset
actions, and movements in the face and head. We ages. Infants can acquire skills in various orders, skip
focus primarily on the infancy period, when basic stages, and revert to earlier forms.13–15 Moreover, the
action systems are acquired. skills highlighted on the milestone charts reflect the cul-
tural biases of the initial researchers and samples.4 In
some cultures, for example, many infants do not crawl,
POSTURE or they do so after they learn to walk.16
Posture is the most fundamental of motor actions. It Generally speaking, infants’ gradual triumph
is the foundation upon which other actions are over gravity precedes top down from head to feet.
built.10 The instant that any part of the body breaks The top-down progression is especially striking in the
from the support surface—merely raising an arm development of sitting. At first, head and trunk con-
while supine or lifting the head while prone—torque trol is so poor that unsupported infants fold in half,
acting on the body part creates disequilibrium. This falling chest to legs. Increasing control moves slowly
is why novice sitting and standing infants lose bal- down the spine—neck, shoulders, waist, and hips.17,18
ance just from turning their heads or lifting their Infants eventually ‘tripod sit’ by stabilizing their torso
arms. Posture must be sufficiently stable to allow with arms propped between their outstretched legs.
movements of the extremities, and maintaining a sta- Finally, around 6 months of age, infants sit independ-
ble posture sets up the necessary conditions for look- ently with hands freed from a supporting role,19 and
ing around, handling objects, holding conversations, over the ensuing weeks gain sufficient stability to
or going somewhere. As such, the emergence of most manage the destabilizing forces caused by turning the
skills—including those not obviously related to head, twisting the torso, and moving the arms. The
posture—must await the development of sufficient skill progression is not locked to a strict maturational
postural control. Like every action, posture is percep- timetable. Differences in childrearing practices affect
tually guided and maintained. the timing and trajectory of sitting.4,20 In cultures
where caregivers routinely exercise and massage their
infants, the babies sit independently before 5 months
Overcoming Gravity of age, and they do so with such assured stability that
Gravity and the surrounding media (e.g., air, water, their mothers regularly perch them on high furniture
the ground beneath the feet) are so quietly pervasive, and leave the room to do chores.
so hidden in plain sight, that these important factors Like sitting, standing typically begins with man-
are often overlooked as causal forces in development. ual support of balance. Infants pull to stand and hold
But they are central for motor development. Before themselves upright by gripping furniture for sup-
birth, the buoyant uterine environment supports a port.15 Toward the end of the first year, they stand
variety of postures. Large body movements—whole freely and cruise holding furniture for support.19
body flexion and extension, stretching and writhing, Locomotion in prone, sitting, crawling, and upright
and vigorous leg kicks that somersault the fetus postures appears only after infants can keep balance
through the amniotic fluid—peak at 14–16 weeks in one place, and transitions between postures (shift-
gestation.11,12 As the growing fetus occupies increas- ing from prone to sitting, sitting to standing, and so
ingly more space in the uterus, the propensity for on) typically emerge last.
movement is masked until the fetus can no longer
extend its limbs or turn its head. Many of the move-
ments practiced by the fetus are present in the reper- Basis for Action
toire of the neonate,12 but after birth begins the real A stable postural base opens up new possibilities for
struggle against gravity. acquiring knowledge and acting on the world. The
Walks alone
Stands alone
Cruising
Pulls to stand
Crawling
Rolls over
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Age (months)
FI GU RE 1 | Typical example of milestone chart illustrating age-related changes in postural development. (Reprinted with permission from Ref
4. Copyright 2010 Taylor and Francis)
Visual information for body sway is extremely reappearance of stepping was attributed to a hard-
powerful. Slight movement of the walls around a sit- wired developmental mechanism: Cortical matura-
ting or standing infant in a ‘moving room’ creates the tion inhibits the reflex and increased myelination of
illusion of postural sway (Figure 2), and infants com- the corticospinal tract allows stepping to return
pensate for the visual information for body position under volitional control.
by leaning in the opposite direction.37–39 However, However, the so-called stepping reflex is not, in
infants do not use visual information for postural con- fact, reflexive, and alternating leg movements do not,
trol as efficiently as older children and adults. While in fact, disappear. Newborns ‘air-step’ without an eli-
adults rock gently back and forth like puppets in tune citing physical stimulus and they step in response to
with the wall oscillations, infants’ compensatory optic flow.45,46 Infants can deliberately modify their
sways are excessive and they often stagger and fall. leg movements47 in various configurations of alter-
nating, simultaneous, and single-leg kicks.48,49 They
spontaneously kick their legs while supine50 and
Summary: Posture supine leg kicks are kinematically equivalent to
Posture is the core ingredient of motor skill. With no upright steps, and are produced by the same muscle
postural control, most motor behaviors are impossi- activations.50 Moreover, supine kicking continues
ble. The development of postural control instigates a unabated throughout the period when upright step-
cascade of new skills and opens up new possibilities ping disappears,51 and upright steps instantly reap-
for looking, social interactions, manual actions, and pear when infants are held on a motorized
locomotion. Postural development is partly a percep- treadmill52,53 or when their legs are submerged in a
tual accomplishment because even while sitting and tank of water.54 With daily practice in an upright
standing, the body is always slightly swaying and posture, the stepping movements never disap-
perception plays a key role in keeping the body inside pear.55,56 Changes in the body, not the brain, explain
the base of support. Postural control emerges from the U-shaped trajectory of upright stepping: Between
the interaction of a growing body dealing with the 2–8 months of age, gains in leg fat typically outstrip
constraints of the physical environment—gravity, air, gains in muscle.54 In an upright position, infants can-
the properties of the support surface, and so not lift their chubby legs against gravity, but in a
on. Caregiving practices can speed up or delay pos- supine position gravity helps to flex the legs; on a
tural control and the cascade of new skills that treadmill, the moving belt does the work of pulling
follow. infants’ legs backward and in a tank of water, the
medium alleviates the effects of gravity. Upright prac-
tice makes leg muscles stronger.
LOCOMOTION
Precursory locomotor movements are exhibited dur-
ing fetal and neonatal periods, but locomotion is not Creative Solutions
reflexive or hardwired. Rather, locomotion is creative Individual infants find different ways to solve the
and infants must learn to control locomotion adapt- problem of moving. Their first success at mobility
ively. Locomotion improves with practice, and prac- likely involves a prone position with minimal balance
tice can lead to extraordinary performance.4,7,40 constraints. They may log roll from place to place or
pivot in circles using auditory information to calcu-
late the shortest rotational distance to their care-
Newborn Reflexes givers.57 As shown in Figure 3, some infants belly
When newborns are held upright with their feet on a crawl, using limbs, head, and belly in various combi-
hard surface, they move their legs in an alternating nations for support and propulsion.58,59 The belly
pattern that resembles walking. This phenomenon is rests continually on the floor or bumps up and down
called the ‘newborn stepping reflex’ because the during each cycle. Every form of precursory prone
movements appear to be elicited by contact with the movement helps: Infants who pivot, belly crawl, and
ground surface and do not require cortical control.41 so on are twice as proficient when they begin crawl-
Stepping typically disappears by 2 months of age and ing on hands and knees compared with infants who
reappears at 8–10 months when infants begin walk- do not display the earlier forms.58 In fact, simply
ing with support. The fact that newborns produce spending a few minutes a day in a prone position
alternating, upright leg movements led researchers to accelerates the onset of rolling and crawling.60
believe that walking is hardwired in the nervous On hands and knees, balance constraints
system.42–44 Similarly, the curious disappearance and increase because the belly is off the floor. As a
(a)
(b)
FI GU RE 3 | Variations in infants’ crawling patterns. Left column because it requires infants to initially turn away from
shows four different crawling styles: ‘army’ crawling with the abdomen the goal, coordinate backward movements, and steer
continually resting on the ground, ‘inchworm’ crawling with the belly without visual guidance. On narrow bridges, infants
on and off the ground during each cycle, standard hands-and-knees use a sturdy wooden handrail as a tool to augment
crawling, and hands-and-feet ‘bear’ crawling. Center column their balance, but they reject the handrail if it is too
represents combinations of arms and legs used to propel the body. far from the bridge.65,68,69 With only a wobbly rub-
Right column shows combinations of belly, hands, knees, and feet ber handrail for support, they test the potential utility
used to maintain balance. Each row shows a unique crawling pattern. of the rail, and invent various strategies for distribut-
(Reprinted with permission from Ref 58. Copyright 1998 Wiley) ing body weight over the bridge and handrail
(Figure 4B).
consequence, most infants quickly settle into a rela-
tively stable, near-trot gait pattern.58,61 But they also
crawl on hands and feet, and combine hands, knees,
feet, and buttocks into various forms of hitching and Learning to Walk
bum-shuffling positions that blur the line between sit- Infants take their first walking steps at 12 months,
ting and crawling.40 Balance constraints are more on average,19 but like all motor milestones, onset
severe while upright, but learning to walk is likewise ages have a wide range (8–18 months). Walking
an exercise in creative problem solving with various onset awaits sufficient strength and balance to sup-
falling, twisting, and stepping strategies for inducing port the body on one leg as the other leg swings for-
enough disequilibrium to take steps but not so much ward.43,70,71 Both experimental and cross-cultural
loss of stability to cause a fall.43,62,63 studies show that experience standing, stepping, and
Generating new forms of locomotion can moving upright facilitates gains in strength and bal-
involve cognitive skills such as means-ends problem ance and accelerates the onset of walking.4,7,40 A few
solving, representing goals and spatial locations, and minutes of daily practice with upright stepping causes
tool use. As illustrated in Figure 4A, when con- infants to begin walking weeks earlier than infants
fronted with challenging obstacles such as steep who receive only passive exercise.55,56 Similarly, in
slopes, cliffs, and stairs, infants search for alternative Caribbean and African cultures where parents delib-
means of descent—scooting, crawling, sliding, and erately exercise their infants’ upright skills as part of
backing strategies.64,66,67 Backing is most difficult daily massage and bathing routines (Figure 5),
F I G U R E 5 | Formal massage and exercise routines used in Africa, India, and the Caribbean that facilitate motor development. (a) Massage;
(b and c) Suspending the infant from the arms and feet; (d) Mother providing sitting practice; (e and f ) Practicing stepping in an upright posture.
(Reprinted with permission from Ref 72. Copyright 1988 APA and Reprinted with permission from Ref 73. Copyright 2015 Taylor and Francis)
infants walk sooner than those from the same ethnic 150–300 km over 24–48 hours.81 From childhood,
backgrounds who do not receive practice.16 East African women and Nepalese porters of both
Infants’ first steps are wobbly and uneven, with genders carry prodigious loads on their heads. Adults
a wide side-to-side distance between feet, a small in these cultures have learned to alter the biomechan-
front-to-back distance between steps, long periods ics of gait so as to carry loads greater than their body
when both feet are on the floor, and short periods weight with reduced energetic cost.82,83
when one foot is in the air.74,75 But soon the base of
support narrows, step length increases, double sup-
port periods decrease, and infants are racing across Obstacle Navigation
the floor. The steep developmental trajectory for Perception-action coupling makes locomotion func-
walking resembles the negatively accelerated perfor- tional. To navigate the everyday cluttered environ-
mance curves characteristic of most motor learning ment, children must select the appropriate
tasks. Initial rapid improvements in the first 3–6 movements and modify them accordingly, whether
months of walking reflect infants’ discovery of the crawling, walking, or riding a bicycle.84 Children
relevant parameters that control upright balance and generate the requisite perceptual information through
propulsion.74,76–78 A protracted tapering-off period exploratory movements—looking, touching, and test-
ending between 5–7 years of age reflects subtle fine- ing various options.7,64,85 The first studies of obstacle
tuning of gait parameters.70,79 Practice, not merely navigation tested infants on a ‘visual cliff,’ a drop-off
maturation, underlies improvements,74 and infants covered in safety glass.86 But infants in such studies
accumulate immense amount of practice. In 1 hour can feel the glass and, after one trial, they learn that
of free play, the average toddler takes about 2400 the drop-off is only illusory—and so they cross.87
steps, travels the length of about 8 U.S. football As shown in Figure 6, recent researchers have used
fields, and falls 17 times.80 real cliffs, bridges, waterbeds, foam pits, water
Sufficient practice can lead to improvements in pits, slippery surfaces, barriers, apertures, monkey
endurance, strength, coordination, and balance far bars, car-filled streets, and other obstacles to test
beyond the norm for Western walkers.4,40 Tarahu- the development of prospective control of
maran children engage in long-distance running as locomotion.66,67,84,88–94 Because visual and haptic
part of daily activity. As a consequence, endurance information are not in conflict on these appara-
running exceeds the abilities of most Western ultra- tuses, children can be tested in dozens of trials
marathoners: Tarahumaran children routinely run (an experimenter follows alongside to ensure their
10–40 km in a few hours and adults race safety). Many of the apparatuses are adjustable,
Summary: Locomotion
Fetuses and neonates can produce leg and arm move-
ments that grossly resemble locomotion, but locomo-
tion is not hardwired or reflexive. Instead locomotor
development is tremendously plastic and responsive
FI GU RE 6 | (a) ‘Visual cliff’ with safety glass covering an to caregiving practices. And locomotion is wildly cre-
apparent drop-off. (c) Real cliff with adjustable height of drop-off. ative. Every infant discovers a unique solution for
(c) Sitting at the edge of an adjustable gap. (d) Cruising an adjustable
their first crawling, walking, bum shuffling, or rolling
gap in the handrail. (e) Walking across adjustable bridges. (f )
‘steps.’ And then they must learn to generate infor-
Crawling down an adjustable slope. (g) Walking down a slope with a
Teflon-coated section. (Reprinted with permission from Ref 73. mation for perception and cognition to find the right
Copyright 2015 Taylor and Francis) solution to suit the local constraints of the cluttered,
obstacle strewn everyday environment.
are sufficient to pick up an object, thereby allowing eyes.25 Hands begin to serve complementary func-
‘pre-graspers’ to reap some of the benefits of grasp- tions, one supporting the object and keeping it in
ing objects that only older infants normally experi- view, the other generating information about object
ence.125 These early benefits have both immediate properties by fingering or palpating.138 Infants
and long-lasting effects on manual skill.126–128 With explore the relations between object and surface
increased hand/finger control, infants adapt their properties by banging a hard block against a rigid
grip configuration to object properties, but they do surface to make a noise or rubbing a soft block
so after contacting the object, not prospectively dur- against the surface.107
ing the reach.129 Prospective control of grasping
based on visual information for object size, orienta-
tion, and substance appears months after infants Extending Abilities with Tools
begin reaching.130–133 Tool use has its roots in early motor actions and
relies on motor actions for its execution.99,100,108
Young infants’ spontaneous banging and rubbing
Exploring Objects become preschoolers’ hammering and drawing. Fetal
An object in hand opens up new opportunities for hand-to-mouth behaviors become self-feeding with a
visual, manual, and oral exploration, and with spoon. Exploring relations between objects and sur-
increasing skill, object exploration becomes increas- faces sets the stage for using objects as effective tools.
ingly multimodal.134,135 At first, infants use their Tool use requires infants to perceive that a goal
hands only to bring objects up to the face for looking is beyond their abilities, recognize that an object can
and mouthing.136 Increased grip strength allows serve as a means to augment their abilities, and exe-
infants to alternate between looking and mouthing, cute the necessary movements to use the tool. Each
providing multimodal information about object of these steps in real time must first be acquired in
properties. Soon, manual skills progress beyond mere development. For example, very young infants per-
holding. Infants heft, rub, squeeze, and finger ceive when an object is out of reach.139 Months later,
objects.31,135,137 Later, infants coordinate visual and they use hooks, canes, and rakes to acquire out-of-
manual exploration by transferring objects from reach objects, but only if the target object is already
hand to hand and rotating them in front of their placed inside the crook of the tool.140–142 And still
(d)
Both
hands
FI GU RE 8 | Nine-month-old infant grasping a spoon (a) by the bowl or (b) with an ulnar grip that points the bowl away from the mouth.
(c) An 18-month-old using a radial grip that correctly brings food to the mouth. (d) Variety of pen grips used by 3- and 5-year-olds and adults.
(Reprinted with permission from Ref 143. Copyright 1999 APA and Reprinted with permission from Ref 144. Copyright 1998 Wiley)
later they perceive the full implications of the spatial Swallowing, Sucking, and Chewing
relations by orienting the tools to place the target in Actions like swallowing are normally so innocuous
the crook. Observing caregivers or other adults use a that we do not recognize the tremendous coordina-
tool effectively provides a powerful impetus for tion required. Fetuses make swallowing, sucking, and
learning142 breathing movements, but since they do not breathe
Implementation often stands in the way of func- air or eat, the movements are not coordinated.149
tional tool use. Nine-month-olds grasp a spoon filled However, to nurse without choking or swallowing
with applesauce by the bowl end rather than by the air, newborns must coordinate movements of tongue,
handle (getting a handful of applesauce), or with a jaws, and lips to create suction, draw liquid into the
grip that points the food away from the mouth so mouth, pull the liquid into the pharynx, and divert
that they cannot eat (Figure 8A,B). Eighteen-month- the liquid to the esophagus while pulling air into the
olds perceive the optimal grasp for delivering food to trachea.150–152 Infants solve the timing problem by
their own mouth and plan their grasp prospectively, coordinating suck–swallow–respiration patterns at a
but their planning is less efficient when feeding a doll ratio of 1:1:1 or 2:2:1.153–155
(Figure 8C).143,145,146 Two-year-olds adapt their Chewing solid food is more complicated
grasp to use a spoon with a bent handle.147 But even because the food must be masticated before it can be
4-year-olds fail to realize that they must use an swallowed. Newborns can mush up a small piece of
underhand grip to grasp a spoon or hammer pointing banana and move it around the mouth with jaws and
away from their dominant hand.148 Implementing a tongue.156 However, infants rely on lateral jaw
writing or drawing instrument poses similar pro- movements to do most of the work of chewing,
blems for older children.144 Three-year-olds use whereas older children and adults use rotary jaw
11 different grip configurations to draw straight lines movements and incorporate more prospective actions
(including using both hands to hold the pen) and of the lips and tongue.157 Infants produce the same
individual children vary their grips from trial to trial chewing movements regardless of the type of food,
(Figure 8D). Variability decreases by 5 years of age whereas older children select appropriate jaw move-
when most children begin formal schooling, and chil- ments and muscle forces based on the food
dren converge on one of the two common adult consistency.157
grips.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writing of this article was supported by NICHD Grant R37-HD33486 to K. E. Adolph.
FURTHER READING
Adolph KE, Berger SE. Motor development. In: Kuhn D, Siegler RS, eds. Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, Per-
ception, and Language, vol. 2. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2006, 161–213.
Gibson EJ, Pick AD. An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: Oxford University
Press; 2000.
Smitsman AW, Corbetta D. Action in infancy: perspectives, concepts, and challenges. In: Bremner JG, Wachs TD, eds. The
Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development. 2nd ed. Chichester and West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd; 2010,
167–203.
Thelen E. Motor development: a new synthesis. Am Psychol 1995, 50:79–95.
REFERENCES
1. Bernstein NA. On dexterity and its development. In: 4. Adolph KE, Karasik LB, Tamis-LeMonda CS. Motor
Latash ML, Turvey MT, eds. Dexterity and Its Devel- skills. In: Bornstein MH, ed. Handbook of Cultural
opment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996, 3–244. Development Science. Domains of Development across
Cultures, vol. 1. New York: Taylor and Francis;
2. Gibson EJ. Has psychology a future? Psychol Sci 1994,
2010, 61–88.
5:69–76.
5. Gibson EJ. Exploratory behavior in the development
3. Keen R. The development of problem solving in young
of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge.
children: a critical cognitive skill. Annu Rev Psychol
Annu Rev Psychol 1988, 39:1–41.
2011, 62:1–21.
6. Piaget J. The Construction of Reality in the Child. 22. Fogel A, Messinger DS, Dickson KL, Hsu H. Posture
New York: Basic Books; 1954. and gaze in early mother-infant communication: syn-
7. Adolph KE, Robinson SR. Motor development. In: chronization of developmental trajectories. Dev Sci
Liben L, Muller U, eds. Handbook of Child Psy- 1999, 2:325–332.
chology and Developmental Science. Cognitive Pro- 23. Kretch KS, Franchak JM, Adolph KE. Crawling and
cesses, vol. 2. 7th ed. New York: Wiley; 2015, walking infants see the world differently. Child Devel-
114–157. opment 2014, 85:1503–1518.
8. Thelen E. Dynamic systems theory and the complex- 24. Rachwani J, Santamaria V, Saavedra SL, Wood S,
ity of change. Psychoanal Dialogues 2005, Porter F, Woollacott MH. Segmental trunk control
15:255–283. acquisition and reaching in typically developing
9. Campos JJ, Anderson DI, Barbu-Roth MA, infants. Exp Brain Res 2013, 228:131–139.
Hubbard EM, Hertenstein MJ, Witherington DC. 25. Soska KC, Adolph KE. Postural position constrains
Travel broadens the mind. Infancy 2000, 1:149–219. multimodal object exploration in infants. Infancy
10. Reed ES. An outline of a theory of action systems. 2014, 19:138–161.
J Mot Behav 1982, 14:98–134. 26. Harbourne RT, Lobo MA, Karst GM, Galloway JC.
11. D’Elia A, Pighetti M, Moccia G, Santangelo N. Spon- Sit happens: does sitting development perturb reaching
taneous motor activity in normal fetuses. Early Hum development, or vice versa? Infant Behav Dev 2013,
Dev 2001, 65:139–147. 36:438–450.
12. de Vries JIP, Hopkins B. Fetal movements and pos- 27. Carvalho RP, Tudella E, Calijouw SR,
tures: what do they mean for postnatal development? Savelsbergh GJP. Early control of reaching: effects of
In: Hopkins B, Johnson SP, eds. Prenatal Development experience and body orientation. Infant Behav Dev
of Postnatal Functions. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2005, 2008, 31:23–33.
177–220. 28. Soska KC, Adolph KE, Johnson SP. Systems in devel-
13. Gesell A. The ontogenesis of infant behavior. In: opment: motor skill acquisition facilitates three-
Carmichael L, ed. Manual of Child Psychology. dimensional object completion. Dev Psychol 2010,
New York: John Wiley; 1946, 295–331. 46:129–138.
14. Adolph KE, Berger SE, Leo AJ. Developmental conti- 29. Baumgartner HA, Oakes LM. Investigating the rela-
nuity? Crawling, cruising, and walking. Dev Sci 2011, tion between infants’ manual activity with objects and
14:306–318. their perception of dynamic events. Infancy 2013,
18:983–1006.
15. Atun-Einy O, Berger SE, Scher A. Pulling to stand:
common trajectories and individual differences. Dev 30. Libertus K, Gibson J, Hidayatallah NZ, Hirtle J,
Psychobiol 2012, 54:187–198. Adcock RA, Needham AW. Size matters: how age and
reaching experience shape infants’ preferences for dif-
16. Hopkins B, Westra T. Motor development, maternal
ferent sized objects. Infant Behav Dev 2013,
expectations, and the role of handling. Infant Behav
36:189–198.
Dev 1990, 13:117–122.
31. Eppler MA. Development of manipulatory skills and
17. Hopkins B, Ronnqvist L. Facilitating postural control:
the deployment of attention. Infant Behav Dev 1995,
effects on the reaching behavior of 6-month-old
18:391–405.
infants. Dev Psychobiol 2002, 40:168–182.
32. Loucks J, Sommerville JA. The role of motor experi-
18. Saavedra SL, van Donkelaar P, Woollacott MH.
ence in understanding action function: the case of the
Learning about gravity: segmental assessment of
precision grasp. Child Dev 2012, 83:801–809.
upright control as infants develop independent sitting.
J Neurophysiol 2012, 108:2215–2229. 33. Daum MM, Prinz W, Aschersleben G. Perception and
19. Martorell R, Onis M, Martines J, Black M, production of object-related grasping in 6-month-olds.
Onyango A, Dewey KG. WHO motor development J Exp Child Psychol 2011, 108:810–818.
study: windows of achievement for six gross motor 34. Deffeyes JE, Harbourne RT, Stuberg WA, Stergiou N.
development milestones. Acta Paediatr 2006, Approximate entropy used to assess sitting postural
95(S450):86–95. sway of infants with developmental delay. Infant
20. Karasik LB, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Adolph KE, Behav Dev 2011, 34:81–99.
Bornstein MH. Places and postures: a cross-cultural 35. Metcalfe JS, Chen LC, Chang TY, McDowell K,
comparison of sitting in 5-month-olds. J Cross Cult Jeka JJ, Clark JE. The temporal organization of pos-
Psychol 2015, 46:1023–1038. ture changes during the first year of independent walk-
21. Kretch KS, Adolph KE. Active vision in passive loco- ing. Exp Brain Res 2005, 161:405–416.
motion: real-world free viewing in infants and adults. 36. Chen LC, Metcalfe JS, Chang TY, Jeka JJ, Clark JE.
Dev Sci 2015, 18:736–750. The development of infant upright posture: sway less
or sway differently? Exp Brain Res 2008, 51. Thelen E. Rhythmical stereotypies in normal human
186:293–303. infants. Anim Behav 1979, 27:699–715.
37. Bertenthal BI, Bai DL. Infants’ sensitivity to optical 52. Thelen E. Treadmill-elicited stepping in seven-month-
flow for controlling posture. Dev Psychol 1989, old infants. Child Dev 1986, 57:1498–1506.
25:936–945. 53. Yang JF, Lam T, Pang MYC, Lamont E,
38. Dahl A, Campos JJ, Anderson DI, Uchiyama I, Musselman K, Seinen E. Infant stepping: a window to
Witherington DC, Ueno M, Poutrain-Lejeune L, the behavior of the human pattern generator for walk-
Barbu-Roth M. The epigenesis of wariness of heights. ing. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2004, 82:662–674.
Psychol Sci 2013, 24:1361–1367.
54. Thelen E, Fisher DM, Ridley-Johnson R. The relation-
39. Chen LC, Jeka J, Clark JE. Development of adaptive ship between physical growth and a newborn reflex.
sensorimotor control in infant sitting posture. Gait Infant Behav Dev 1984, 7:479–493.
Posture 2016, 45:157–163.
55. Zelazo PR. The development of walking: new findings
40. Adolph KE, Robinson SR. The road to walking: what on old assumptions. J Mot Behav 1983, 2:99–137.
learning to walk tells us about development. In:
56. Zelazo PR, Zelazo NA, Kolb S. “Walking” in the new-
Zelazo P, ed. Oxford Handbook of Developmental
born. Science 1972, 176:314–315.
Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press;
2013, 403–443. 57. van der Meer ALH, Ramstad M, van der Weel FR.
Choosing the shortest way to mum: auditory guided
41. Andre-Thomas M, Autgaerden S. Locomotion from
rotation in 6- to 9-moth-old infants. Infant Behav Dev
Pre- to Post-Natal Life. Lavenham, Suffolk: Spastics
2008, 31:207–216.
Society Medical Education and Information Unit in
association with William Heinemann Medical Books, 58. Adolph KE, Vereijken B, Denny MA. Learning to
Ltd.; 1966. crawl. Child Dev 1998, 69:1299–1312.
42. Forssberg H. Ontogeny of human locomotor control. 59. Patrick SK, Noah JA, Yang JF. Developmental con-
I. Infant stepping, supported locomotion, and transi- straints of quadrupedal coordination across crawling
tion to independent locomotion. Exp Brain Res 1985, styles in human infants. J Neurophysiol 2012,
57:480–493. 107:3050–3061.
43. McGraw MB. The Neuromuscular Maturation of the 60. Majnemer A, Barr RG. Influence of supine sleep posi-
Human Infant. New York: Columbia University tioning on early motor milestone acquisition. Dev Med
Press; 1945. Child Neurol 2005, 47:370–376.
44. Dominici N, Ivanenko YP, Cappellini G, d’Avella A, 61. Patrick SK, Noah JA, Yang JF. Interlimb coordination
Mondi V, Cicchese M, Fabiano A, Silei T, Di Paolo A, in human crawling reveals similarities in development
Giannini C, et al. Locomotor primitives in newborn and neural control with quadrupeds. J Neurophysiol
babies and their development. Science 2011, 2009, 101:603–613.
334:997–999. 62. McCollum G, Holroyd C, Castelfranco AM. Forms of
45. Barbu-Roth M, Anderson DI, Despres A, Provasi J, early walking. J Theor Biol 1995, 176:373–390.
Cabrol D, Campos JJ. Neonatal stepping in relation to
63. Snapp-Childs W, Corbetta D. Evidence of early strate-
terrestrial optic flow. Child Dev 2009, 80:8–14.
gies in learning to walk. Infancy 2009, 14:101–116.
46. Barbu-Roth M, Anderson DI, Despres A, Streeter RJ,
64. Adolph KE. Learning in the development of infant
Caborl D, Trukillo M, Campos JJ, Provasi J. Air step-
locomotion. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1997, 62.
ping in response to optic flows that move toward and
away from the neonate. Dev Psychobiol 2014, 65. Berger SE, Adolph KE, Lobo SA. Out of the toolbox:
56:1142–1149. toddlers differentiate wobbly and wooden handrails.
Child Dev 2005, 76:1294–1307.
47. Angulo-Kinzler RM, Ulrich BD, Thelen E. Three-
month-old infants can select specific leg motor solu- 66. Kretch KS, Adolph KE. Cliff or step? Posture-specific
tions. Motor Control 2002, 6:52–68. learning at the edge of a drop-off. Child Dev 2013,
84:226–240.
48. Rovee-Collier CK, Morrongiello BA, Aron M,
Kupersmidt J. Topographical response differentiation 67. Karasik LB, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Adolph KE. Deci-
and reversal in 3-month-old infants. Infant Behav Dev sions at the brink: locomotor experience affects
1978, 1:323–333. infants’ use of social information on an adjustable
49. Thelen E. Three-month-old infants can learn task- drop-off. Front Psychol 2016, 7:797.
specific patterns of interlimb coordination. Psychol Sci 68. Berger SE, Adolph KE. Infants use handrails as tools in
1994, 5:280–285. a locomotor task. Dev Psychol 2003, 39:594–605.
50. Thelen E, Fisher DM. Newborn stepping: an explana- 69. Berger SE, Adolph KE, Kavookjian AE. Bridging the
tion for a “disappearing reflex”. Dev Psychol 1982, gap: solving spatial means-ends relations in a locomo-
18:760–775. tor task. Child Dev 2010, 81:1367–1375.
70. Bril B, Ledebt A. Head coordination as a means to 85. Kretch KS, Adolph KE. The organization of explora-
assist sensory integration in learning to walk. Neurosci tory behaviors in infant locomotor planning. Dev Sci.
Biobehav Rev 1998, 22:555–563. In press. doi: 10.1111/desc.12421.
71. Hallemans A, De Clercq D, Aerts P. Changes in 3D 86. Gibson EJ, Walk RD. The “visual cliff”. Sci Am 1960,
joint dynamics during the first 5 months after the onset 202:64–71.
of independent walking: a longitudinal follow-up 87. Campos JJ, Hiatt S, Ramsay D, Henderson C,
study. Gait Posture 2006, 24:270–279. Svejda M. The emergence of fear on the visual cliff. In:
72. Hopkins B, Westra T. Maternal handling and motor Lewis M, Rosenblum L, eds. The Development of
development: an intracultural study. Genet Soc Gen Affect. New York: Plenum; 1978, 149–182.
Psychol Monogr 1988, 114:379–408. 88. Adolph KE, Joh AS, Eppler MA. Infants’ perception of
73. Adolph KE, Berger SE. Physical and motor develop- affordances of slopes under high and low friction con-
ment. In: Bornstein MH, Lamb ME, eds. Development ditions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2010,
Science: An Advanced Textbook. 7th ed. New York: 36:797–811.
Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis; 2015, 261–333. 89. Burnay C, Cordovil R. Crawling experience predicts
74. Adolph KE, Vereijken B, Shrout PE. What changes in avoidance of real cliffs and water cliffs: insight from a
infant walking and why. Child Dev 2003, new paradigm. Infancy 2016, 21:677–684.
74:474–497. 90. Franchak JM, Adolph KE. What infants know and
75. Bril B, Breniere Y. Postural requirements and progres- what they do: perceiving possibilities for walking
sion velocity in young walkers. J Mot Behav 1992, through openings. Dev Psychol 2012, 48:1254–1261.
24:105–116. 91. Gibson EJ, Riccio G, Schmuckler MA, Stoffregen TA,
76. Bril B, Breniere Y. Posture and independent locomo- Rosenberg D, Taormina J. Detection of the traversabil-
tion in early childhood: learning to walk or learning ity of surfaces by crawling and walking infants. J Exp
dynamic postural control? In: Savelsbergh GJP, Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1987, 13:533–544.
ed. The Development of Coordination in Infancy. 92. Joh AS, Adolph KE. Learning from falling. Child Dev
North-Holland: Elsevier; 1993, 337–358. 2006, 77:89–102.
77. Ivanenko YP, Dominici N, Cappellini G, Lacquaniti F. 93. Schmuckler MA. Development of visually guided loco-
Kinematics in newly walking toddlers does not depend motion: barrier crossing by toddlers. Ecol Psychol
upon postural stability. J Neurophysiol 2005, 1996, 8:209–236.
94:754–763.
94. van der Meer ALH. Visual guidance of passing under
78. Bril B, Dupuy L, Dietrich G, Corbetta D. Learning to a barrier. Early Dev Parenting 1997, 6:149–157.
tune the antero-posterior propulsive forces during
walking: a necessary skill for mastering upright loco- 95. Gilmore RO, Baker TJ, Grobman KH. Stability in
motion in toddlers. Exp Brain Res 2015, young infants’ discrimination of optic flow. Dev Psy-
233:2903–2912. chol 2004, 40:259–270.
79. Sutherland DH, Olshen RA, Biden EN, Wyatt MP. 96. Campos JJ, Bertenthal BI, Kermoian R. Early experi-
The Development of Mature Walking. London: Mac ence and emotional development: the emergence of
Keith Press; 1988. wariness of heights. Psychol Sci 1992, 3:61–64.
80. Adolph KE, Cole WG, Komati M, Garciaguirre JS, 97. Adolph KE. Specificity of learning: why infants fall
Badaly D, Lingeman JM, Chan G, Sotsky RB. How do over a veritable cliff. Psychol Sci 2000, 11:290–295.
you learn to walk? Thousands of steps and dozens of 98. Adolph KE, Kretch KS, LoBue V. Fear of heights in
falls per day. Psychol Sci 2012, 23:1387–1394. infants? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2014, 23:60–66.
81. Bennett WC, Zingg RM. The Tarahumara, an Indian 99. Smitsman AW, Bongers RM. Tool use and tool mak-
tribe of northern Mexico. Chicago, IL: University of ing: a developmental action perspective. In: Valsiner J,
Chicago Press; 1935. Connolly KJ, eds. Handbook of Developmental Psy-
82. Bastien GJ, Schepens B, Willems PA, Heglund NC. chology. London: Sage; 2003, 172–193.
Energetics of load carrying in Nepalese porters. Science 100. Lockman JJ, Kahrs BA. Tool using. Child Dev Per-
2005, 308:1755. spect 2014, 8:231–236.
83. Maloiy GMO, Heglund NC, Prager LM, Cavagna GA, 101. Prechtl HFR. Ultrasound studies of human fetal beha-
Taylor CR. Energetic costs of carrying loads: have viour. Early Hum Dev 1985, 12:91–98.
African women discovered an economic way? Nature 102. Prechtl HFR. Prenatal motor development. In:
1986, 319:668–669. Wade MG, Whiting HTA, eds. Motor Development
84. Plumert JM, Kearney JK. How do children perceive in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control.
and act on dynamic affordances in crossing traffic- Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing;
filled roads? Child Dev Perspect 2014, 8:207–212. 1986, 53–64.
103. Sparling JW, van Tol J, Chescheir NC. Fetal and neo- 120. van Hof P, van der Kamp J, Savelsbergh GJP. The
natal hand movement. Phys Ther 1999, 79:24–39. relation between infants’ perception of catchableness
104. Hepper PG, Shahidullah S, White R. Handedness in and the control of catching. Dev Psychol 2008,
the human fetus. Neuropsychologia 1991, 44:182–194.
29:1107–1111. 121. Churchill A, Hopkins B, Ronnqvist L, Vogt S. Vision
105. Reissland N, Francis B, Aydin E, Mason J, Schaal B. of the hand and environmental context in human pre-
The development of anticipation in the fetus: a longi- hension. Exp Brain Res 2000, 134:81–89.
tudinal account of human fetal mouth movements in 122. Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Stolze H, Boczek-Funcke A,
reaction to and anticipation of touch. Dev Psychobiol Johnk K, Heinrichs H, Illert M. Kinematic analysis of
2014, 56:955–963. prehension movements in children. Behav Brain Res
106. Piek JP, Carman R. Developmental profiles of sponta- 1998, 93:131–141.
neous movements in infants. Early Hum Dev 1994, 123. Clifton RK, Rochat P, Robin DJ, Berthier NE. Multi-
39:109–126. modal perception in the control of infant reaching.
107. Fontenelle SA, Kahrs BA, Neal SA, Newton AT, J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1994,
Lockman JJ. Infant manual exploration of composite 20:876–886.
substrates. J Exp Child Psychol 2007, 98:153–167. 124. Lee MH, Newell KM. Visual feedback of hand trajec-
108. Kahrs BA, Jung WP, Lockman JJ. Motor origins of tory and the development of infant prehension. Infant
tool use. Child Dev 2013, 84:810–816. Behav Dev 2012, 35:273–279.
109. Thelen E, Corbetta D, Kamm K, Spencer JP, 125. Needham AW, Barrett T, Peterman K. A pick-me-up
Schneider K, Zernicke RF. The transition to reaching: for infants’ exploratory skills: early simulated experi-
mapping intention and intrinsic dynamics. Child Dev ences reaching for objects using “sticky” mittens
1993, 64:1058–1098. enhances young infants’ object exploration skills.
110. Lee HM, Bhat A, Scholz JP, Galloway JC. Toy- Infant Behav Dev 2002, 25:279–295.
oriented changes during early arm movements IV: 126. Libertus K, Needham AW. Teach to reach: the effects
shoulder-elbow coordination. Infant Behav Dev of active vs. passive reaching experiences on action
2008, 31:447–469. and perception. Vision Res 2010, 50:2750–2757.
111. Lee MH, Ranganathan R, Newell KM. Changes in 127. Wiesen SE, Watkins RM, Needham AW. Active
object-oriented arm movements that precede the tran- motor training has long-term effects on infants’ object
sition to goal-directed reaching in infancy. Dev Psy- exploration. Front Psychol 2016, 7:599.
chobiol 2011, 53:685–693. 128. Libertus K, Joh AS, Needham AW. Motor training at
112. Berthier NE, Keen RE. Development of reaching in 3 months affects object exploration 12 months later.
infancy. Exp Brain Res 2006, 169:507–518. Dev Sci 2015, 6:1058–1066.
113. Konczak J, Dichgans J. The development toward ster- 129. Vollmer B, Forssberg H. Development of grasping
eotypic arm kinematics during reaching in the first and object manipulation. In: Nowak DA,
3 years of life. Exp Brain Res 1997, 117:346–354. Hermsdorfer J, eds. Sensorimotor Control of Grasp-
114. Clifton RK, Muir DW, Ashmead DH, Clarkson MG. ing: Physiology and Pathophysiology. Cambridge:
Is visually guided reaching in early infancy a myth? Cambridge University Press; 2009, 235–249.
Child Dev 1993, 64:1099–1110. 130. Barrett TM, Traupman E, Needham AW. Infants’ vis-
115. Schneiberg S, Sveistrup H, McFadyen B, McKinley P, ual anticipation of object structure in grasp planning.
Levin MF. The development of coordination of Infant Behav Dev 2008, 31:1–9.
reach-to-grasp movements in children. Exp Brain Res 131. Fagard J. Linked proximal and distal changes in the
2002, 146:142–154. reaching behavior of 5- to 12-month-old human
116. Galloway JC, Thelen E. Feet first: object exploration infants grasping objects of different sizes. Infant
in young infants. Infant Behav Dev 2004, Behav Dev 2000, 23:317–329.
27:107–112. 132. Witherington DC. The development of prospective
117. von Hofsten C. Catching skills in infancy. J Exp Psy- grasping control between 5 and 7 months: a longitu-
chol Hum Percept Perform 1983, 9:75–85. dinal study. Infancy 2005, 7:143–161.
118. von Hofsten C, Lindhagen K. Observations on the 133. von Hofsten C, Johansson K. Planning to reach for a
development of reaching for moving objects. J Exp rotating rod: developmental aspects. ZEEP 2009,
Child Psychol 1979, 28:158–173. 41:207–213.
119. Fagard J, Spelke ES, von Hofsten C. Reaching and 134. Needham AW. Improvements in object exploration
grasping a moving object in 6-, 8-, and 10-month-old skills may facilitate the development of object segre-
infants: laterality and performance. Infant Behav Dev gation in early infancy. J Cognit Dev 2000,
2009, 32:137–146. 1:131–156.
135. Rochat P. Object manipulation and exploration in 2- 152. Geddes DT, Sakalidis VS, Hepworth AR,
to 5-month-old infants. Dev Psychol 1989, McClellan HL, Kent JC, Lai CT, Hartmann PE. Ton-
25:871–884. gue movement and intra-oral vacuum of term infants
136. Norris B, Smith S. Research into the mouthing beha- during breastfeeding and feeding from an experimen-
viour of children up to 5 years old, 2002. tal teat that released milk under vacuum only. Early
Hum Dev 2012, 88:443–449.
137. Palmer CF. The discriminating nature of infants’
exploratory actions. Dev Psychol 1989, 25:885–893. 153. Barlow SM. Oral and respiratory control for preterm
feeding. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
138. Kotwica KA, Ferre CL, Michel GF. Relation of stable
2009, 17:179–186.
hand-use preferences to the development of skill for
managing multiple objects from 7 to 13 months of 154. van der Meer ALH, Holden G, van der Weel FR.
age. Dev Psychobiol 2008, 50:519–529. Coordination of sucking, swallowing, and breathing
in healthy newborns. J Pediatr Neonatol 2005,
139. Yonas A, Hartman B. Perceiving the affordance of
2:69–72.
contact in four- and five-month-old infants. Child
Dev 1993, 64:298–308. 155. Fucile S, MacFarland DH, Gisel EG, Lau C. Oral and
140. Chen Z, Siegler RS. Across the great divide: bridging nonoral sensorimotor interventions facilitate suck-
the gap between understanding of toddlers’ and older swallow-respiration functions and their coordination
children’s thinking. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev in preterm infants. Early Hum Dev 2012,
2000, 65. 88:345–350.
141. van Leeuwen L, Smitsman A, van Leeuwen C. Affor- 156. Sheppard JJ, Mysak ED. Ontogeny of infantile oral
dances, perceptual complexity, and the development reflexes and emerging chewing. Child Dev 1984,
of tool use. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 55:831–843.
1994, 20:174–191. 157. Wilson EM, Green JR. The development of jaw
142. Rat-Fischer L, O’Regan JK, Fagard J. The emergence motion for mastication. Early Hum Dev 2009,
of tool use during the second year of life. J Exp Child 85:303–311.
Psychol 2012, 113:440–446. 158. Reissland N, Francis B, Mason J. Can healthy fetuses
143. McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR. Problem sol- show facial expressions of “pain” or “distress”?
ving in infancy: the emergence of an action plan. Dev PLoS One 2013, 8:e65530.
Psychol 1999, 35:1091–1101. 159. Reissland N, Francis B, Mason J, Lincoln K. Do
144. Greer T, Lockman JJ. Using writing instruments: facial expressions develop before birth? PLoS One
invariances in young children and adults. Child Dev 2011, 6:e24081.
1998, 69:888–902. 160. Loos HM, Doucet S, Roussignan R, Hartmann C,
145. Claxton LJ, McCarty ME, Keen R. Self-directed Durand K, Dittrich R, Sagot P, Buettner A, Schaal B.
action affects planning in tool-use tasks with toddlers. Responsiveness of human neonates to the odor of 5a-
Infant Behav Dev 2009, 32:230–233. Androst-16-en-3-one: a behavioral paradox? Chem
Senses 2014, 39:693–703.
146. McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR. The begin-
nings of tool use by infants and toddlers. Infancy 161. Messinger DS. Positive and negative: infant facial
2001, 2:233–256. expressions and emotions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci
2002, 11:1–6.
147. Steenbergen B, van der Kamp J, Smitsman A,
Carson RG. Spoon-handling in two- to four-year-old 162. Messinger DS. Smiling. In: Haith MM, Benson JB,
children. Ecol Psychol 1997, 9:113–129. eds. Encyclopedia of Infant and Early Childhood
148. Keen R, Lee MH, Adolph KE. Planning an action: a Development, vol. 3. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008,
developmental progression in tool use. Ecol Psychol 186–198.
2014, 26:96–108. 163. Messinger DS. Smiling. In: Salkind NJ,
149. Miller JL, Sonies BC, Macedonia C. Emergence of ed. Encyclopedia of Human Development, vol. 3.
oropharyngeal, laryngeal and swallowing activity in Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage; 2006, 1183–1185.
the developing fetal upper aerodigestive tract: an 164. Oster H. Emotion in the infant’s face: insights from
ultrasound evaluation. Early Hum Dev 2003, the study of infants with facial anomalies. Ann N Y
71:61–87. Acad Sci 2003, 1000:197–204.
150. Wilson EM, Green JR, Yunusova YY, Moore CA. 165. Green JR, Nip ISB. Some organization principles in
Task specificity in early oral motor development. early speech development. In: Maaseen B, van
Semin Speech Lang 2008, 29:257–266. Lieshout PHHM, eds. Speech Motor Control: New
151. Burton P, Deng J, McDonald D, Fewtrell MS. Real- Development in Basic and Applied Research.
time 3D ultrasound imaging of infant tongue move- New York: Oxford University Press; 2010, 171–188.
ments during breastfeeding. Early Hum Dev 2013, 166. Green JR, Moore CA, Higashikawa M, Steeve RW.
89:635–641. The physiologic development of speech motor
control: lip and jaw coordination. J Speech Lang 174. von Hofsten C, Rosander K. Development of smooth
Hear Res 2000, 43:239–255. pursuit tracking in young infants. Vision Res 1997,
167. Gibson JJ. The Ecological Approach to Visual Per- 37:1799–1810.
ception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Com- 175. Rosander K, von Hofsten C. Development of gaze
pany; 1979. tracking of small and large objects. Exp Brain Res
168. Fausey CM, Jayaraman S, Smith LB. From faces to 2002, 146:257–264.
hands: changing visual input in the first two years. 176. Rosander K, von Hofsten C. Infants’ emerging ability
Cognition 2016, 152:101–107. to represent occluded object motion. Cognition 2004,
169. Daniel BM, Lee DN. Development of looking with 91:1–22.
head and eyes. J Exp Child Psychol 1990,
50:200–216. 177. Johnson SP, Amso D, Slemmer JA. Development of
object concepts in infancy: evidence for early learning
170. Jayaraman W, Fausey CM, Smith LB. The faces in in an eye tracking paradigm. Proc Natl Acad Sci
infant-perspective scenes change over the first year of 2003, 100:10568–10573.
life. PloS One 2015, 10:e0123780.
171. Franchak JM, Kretch KS, Soska KC, Adolph KE. 178. Bronson GW. Infant’s transitions toward adult-like
Head-mounted eye tracking: a new method to describe scanning. Child Dev 1994, 65:1243–1261.
infant looking. Child Dev 2011, 82:1738–1750. 179. Haith MM, Hazan C, Goodman GS. Expectations
172. Smith LB, Yu C, Pereira AF. Not your mother’s view: and anticipation of dynamic visual events by 3.5-
the dynamics of toddler visual experience. Dev Sci month-old babies. Child Dev 1988, 59:467–479.
2011, 14:9–17. 180. Franchak JM, Adolph KE. Visually guided naviga-
173. Yu C, Smith LB. Multiple sensory-motor pathways lead tion: head-mounted eye-tracking of natural locomo-
to coordinated visual attention. Cognit Sci. In press. tion in children and adults. Vision Res 2010,
doi: 10.1111/cogs.12366. 50:2766–2774.